Knife crime: Should stronger stop and search powers be used? Watch

Spirithorse
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
A series of stabbings on the streets of London has led to a renewed focus on knife crime and how to reduce it.

One power available to the police is stop and search, and Home Secretary Sajid Javid has recently emphasised its importance in tackling violence:

"If stop and search means that lives can be saved from the communities most affected, then of course it's a very good thing," he told the annual Police Superintendents' Conference in September.

But what powers are available to the police and what is the evidence they reduce crime?

There are three main acts that allow police forces in England and Wales to carry out stop and searches:

Section One of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Last year, 99.1% of all searches were carried out under Section One (if they have "'reasonable grounds" to suspect someone of carrying illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen property or something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar).

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Allows officers to search anyone in a designated area without "reasonable grounds". It applies when the police have intelligence that serious violence has taken place or may take place.

Sections 44/47A of the Terrorism Act 2000
Allows the police to conduct searches when there is "reasonable suspicion" an act of terrorism will happen. Before last year it had not been used since 2011, but 149 searches were carried out using the power following the Parsons Green bombing in September 2017.

Perceived positives of stop and search:
It acts as a deterrent. Idea that some young people were no longer scared of the police, because they believed the risk of being searched was now very low.

Perceived negatives of stop and search:
On the other hand, if stop and search is used too widely, it can create resentment between the public and the police. This can worsen community intelligence and that the answer to rising knife crime lies in better engagement with young people.

What do you think?
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
The law should be about deterring and punishing criminals not ‘community relations’ which is beyond the polices purview.

Fact is that ‘minorities’ were safer under ‘racist and outdated’ modes of policing than they are now/ where liberal idiot politicians like Theresa May or Sajid Javid are more than happy for hundreds of poor people to be stabbed to death to prove how tolerant and inclusive they are, whilst they live in gated communities.
2
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
You want people to stop commuting crime?

Give them a valuable and meaningful stake in society.
3
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Davij038)
The law should be about deterring and punishing criminals not ‘community relations’ which is beyond the polices purview.

Fact is that ‘minorities’ were safer under ‘racist and outdated’ modes of policing than they are now/ where liberal idiot politicians like Theresa May or Sajid Javid are more than happy for hundreds of poor people to be stabbed to death to prove how tolerant and inclusive they are, whilst they live in gated communities.
You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.
2
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by ByEeek)
You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.
The majority of violent crime committed in London is by black males. One response to that would be targeting that demographic with stop and frisk. This could be considered racist but it would also stop them from being violently killed. I actually value saving lives and upholding the law more than not being called a racist. If wanting to stop blacks being murdered makes me racist then so be it.

And no this isn’t the same as locking up every black person either before you try and straw man me again.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Davij038)
One response to that would be targeting that demographic with stop and frisk. This could be considered racist but it would also stop them from being violently killed.
Because it is racist. The issue is people with knives. Most knife crime is committed by men. So please tell me what would be wrong with systematically stopping and frisking all men which includes you and I. How would you like it if you were stopped and searched by the police on a weekly basis? Do you not think you might start to feel victimised by the police for being stopped when you have done nothing wrong and the only thing they have to go by is the fact that you are a man and therefore potentially committing knife crime?

The reason stop and search was stopped was simply because it was ineffective. It didn't have a massive impact on reducing crime but did make people of ethic origin very fearful and untrusting of the police. If you want to tackle crime you need to treat everyone equally and attempt to challenge all crime regardless of who committed it or who it was committed against. If you start racially profiling offenders, you very quickly lose the trust of that community and at the end of the day, it is intelligence and trust that catch criminals, not dipping into the pond on the hope you get lucky.

Like I said before. I want to see evidence based practice in the criminal justice system. Not personal whims of what you or politicians think will be effective. You wouldn't take a remedy from Doctor CureSomeByChance if you had cancer because his mother swears by it. Yet that is the kind of interventions the criminal justice system uses. We do things because that is how it has always been done and feels right, regardless of the actual outcomes it gives.
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 year ago
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
what about hammer and baseball bat crime? :mad:
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
Because it is racist. The issue is people with knives. Most knife crime is committed by men. So please tell me what would be wrong with systematically stopping and frisking all men which includes you and I. How would you like it if you were stopped and searched by the police on a weekly basis? Do you not think you might start to feel victimised by the police for being stopped when you have done nothing wrong and the only thing they have to go by is the fact that you are a man and therefore potentially committing knife crime?

The reason stop and search was stopped was simply because it was ineffective. It didn't have a massive impact on reducing crime but did make people of ethic origin very fearful and untrusting of the police. If you want to tackle crime you need to treat everyone equally and attempt to challenge all crime regardless of who committed it or who it was committed against. If you start racially profiling offenders, you very quickly lose the trust of that community and at the end of the day, it is intelligence and trust that catch criminals, not dipping into the pond on the hope you get lucky.

Like I said before. I want to see evidence based practice in the criminal justice system. Not personal whims of what you or politicians think will be effective. You wouldn't take a remedy from Doctor CureSomeByChance if you had cancer because his mother swears by it. Yet that is the kind of interventions the criminal justice system uses. We do things because that is how it has always been done and feels right, regardless of the actual outcomes it gives.
Sure stop and frisk every man between 12-40 in London. That’s fine. It was ineffective was it? Well how come so many more people are dying now then?
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Davij038)
Sure stop and frisk every man between 12-40 in London. That’s fine. It was ineffective was it? Well how come so many more people are dying now then?
I don't think either of us can answer that. To suggest that it is the direct result of stop and search being reduced would be foolish. That is the Daily Mail answer. The simple answer to a very complicated problem.

And no - if white wealthy men started getting stopped and search, there would be uproar.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by ByEeek)
I don't think either of us can answer that. To suggest that it is the direct result of stop and search being reduced would be foolish. That is the Daily Mail answer. The simple answer to a very complicated problem.

And no - if white wealthy men started getting stopped and search, there would be uproar.
rightly so.. wealthy white men don't tend to stab people..

stop and searcb isnt the holy grail that some people want it to be, but its part of the equasion.

More officers on the street with a visable presence.. freely able to stop and search.. with fines for knife posession.. tyat would go a long way to so'ving the short term reaction side of the equasion.

get that done first, then as a society focus on the actual causes of knife crime as a long term solution.. poverty, lack of opertu ity, import of gang culture, no fathers etc...
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Davij038)
The law should be about deterring and punishing criminals not ‘community relations’ which is beyond the polices purview.

Fact is that ‘minorities’ were safer under ‘racist and outdated’ modes of policing than they are now/ where liberal idiot politicians like Theresa May or Sajid Javid are more than happy for hundreds of poor people to be stabbed to death to prove how tolerant and inclusive they are, whilst they live in gated communities.
It IS about community relations, we are policed by consent.

If the police come down too hard on the local teens or whatever then when something SERIOUS happens and they try canvassing or going door to door to find witnesses they get told to FK off. Police rely on the community, community relies on the police. They can't do a v good job if people shut up on therm.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
rightly so.. wealthy white men don't tend to stab people..

stop and searcb isnt the holy grail that some people want it to be, but its part of the equasion.

More officers on the street with a visable presence.. freely able to stop and search.. with fines for knife posession.. tyat would go a long way to so'ving the short term reaction side of the equasion.

get that done first, then as a society focus on the actual causes of knife crime as a long term solution.. poverty, lack of opertu ity, import of gang culture, no fathers etc...
I agree. But you can't pick off ethnic groups just because some people of that ethnic group happen to be committing crime. White men commit crime. In Manchester most of the shootings are done by men who belong to white gangs. But I do not hear calls for stopping white men randomly and searching them for guns. Yet in your mind at least, it would be perfectly acceptable to stop black men.

In this country we are very fortunate to have a system of innocent until proven guilty and that applies to all, black, white, brown, whatever. So if you suspect someone of carrying a knife and have evidence to backup that suspicion then go for it. But randomly stopping people on the hope you can make an arrest... that is called victimisation and only makes the general public wary and suspicious of the police. It always makes communities less likely to cooperate with the police and breaks the contract citizens have in this country of allowing the police to police us by consent.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by ByEeek)
I agree. But you can't pick off ethnic groups just because some people of that ethnic group happen to be committing crime.

you can, if that ethnic group is committing more crimes than other ethnic groups.. Same with gender, eye color, post-code, or any other method of differentiating people. If you have a situation where one group is commiting more crime, the most efficient and effective measure is to target preventative measures disproportionately at that group. To target preentative methods at all groups equally, despite their likelyhood to offend, is an enefficient method that will waste time and money - two things the police don't have at the moment.


White men commit crime. In Manchester most of the shootings are done by men who belong to white gangs.

Then I would 100% support the profiling of white-men in that area. Its the only logical way to make your policing more efficient

But I do not hear calls for stopping white men randomly and searching them for guns.

Probably more to do with the fact that its manchester, not london.. than black/white

Yet in your mind at least, it would be perfectly acceptable to stop black men.

IF you can statistically prove that in X area, X group have a greater problem with X crime - yes that minority should be targetted by preventative methods.

In this country we are very fortunate to have a system of innocent until proven guilty and that applies to all, black, white, brown, whatever.

We also have a history and a culture of preventative policing. Active patrolling police officers that seek to stop crimes before they happen. Up until recent decades this was the polices main job - to patrol, and to act as a deterrent to crime. I have been stopped by the police a few times late at night, when I was a kid - they didn't presume I was guilty.. and I was never charged, or had any negative consequences.. the police just want to check whats going on. Its not a presumtion of guilt.. its a presumption of possible guilt. Once they have spoken to you - and you are clearly innocent, nothing happens.

So if you suspect someone of carrying a knife and have evidence to backup that suspicion then go for it.

Do you apply this same method to airports? why should an airport search you? They have no evidence that you are guilty... but we all accept that preventative measures need to apply for mass-saftey and security. Its the same with police taking pre-emptive actions against individuals.


But randomly stopping people on the hope you can make an arrest... that is called victimisation

No, your not making anyone into a victim. Do you know why the police like to randomly stop people? Its not actually so that they can find a knife and make an arrest...

its so that the next time a kid thinks about carrying a knife - they know that there is the chance they can be stopped. Its a deterrent. Not one that works on every kid, but it certianly helps encourage less to carry knives.

and only makes the general public wary and suspicious of the police.

No. It makes people who like to stoke racial fires, and play their minority status for personal gain - suspicious of police. For the majority of normal, law-abiding citizens, it makes them thankful the police exist, and are willing to do their job, even if it is uplesant at times.

It always makes communities less likely to cooperate with the police

What do you think minority communities wold like more? less profiling, or a reduction in crime? - if it works, they will thank you in the long-run. (again, its not the only solution, its just a part)

and breaks the contract citizens have in this country of allowing the police to police us by consent.

Police by consent is a myth. Try not consenting any see what happens. Even try having the majority of the country not consent and see what happens. Yes we are democracy, but the rule of law is used by those in charge, to subdue those under their charge - consent is just clever branding to make you think that the police are only acting in your best interest. If the population ever voted a party into power that would dissolve the police, those with influence would step in and stop the situation, before it ever happened.
replied in bold in the quote
0
reply
PurpleHills
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
I agree. But you can't pick off ethnic groups just because some people of that ethnic group happen to be committing crime. White men commit crime. In Manchester most of the shootings are done by men who belong to white gangs. But I do not hear calls for stopping white men randomly and searching them for guns. Yet in your mind at least, it would be perfectly acceptable to stop black men.

In this country we are very fortunate to have a system of innocent until proven guilty and that applies to all, black, white, brown, whatever. So if you suspect someone of carrying a knife and have evidence to backup that suspicion then go for it. But randomly stopping people on the hope you can make an arrest... that is called victimisation and only makes the general public wary and suspicious of the police. It always makes communities less likely to cooperate with the police and breaks the contract citizens have in this country of allowing the police to police us by consent
This 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

Majority of the time, there is no ‘reasonable suspicion’ when black people are stopped other than the fact that they are black and possibly what they wear. Black ppl are 8x more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, and this only builds up resentment between communities and the police
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by ByEeek)
You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.
Is it? Racists are against other races. You are against majorities, playing the oppression olympics. I used to think like you, but I no longer see much difference between the far right and liberals. Different side of the same coin. Same way Hitler and Stalin were pretty much the same, they just called it differently and had some different economics, that's it. Politically, they were both authoritarian fascist dictators.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by yudothis)
Is it? Racists are against other races. You are against majorities, playing the oppression olympics.
Not at all. Where did I say or suggest that. But I find it ironic that you seem comfortable with suppressing minorities but if a majority become hard-done-by, well that is a different matter. Surely the issue is being hard-done-by regardless of whether you are in a majority or minority? In the case of crime - why not challenge criminals? They are the issue. Race has nothing to do with it.

As for everything else you whittered on about - whatever!
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 year ago
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by ByEeek)
Not at all. Where did I say or suggest that. But I find it ironic that you seem comfortable with suppressing minorities but if a majority become hard-done-by, well that is a different matter. Surely the issue is being hard-done-by regardless of whether you are in a majority or minority? In the case of crime - why not challenge criminals? They are the issue. Race has nothing to do with it.

As for everything else you whittered on about - whatever!
No, it's not whatever - the new left is fascist af. And you are one of them. I am not comfortable with it at all, I am just pointing out that you are the flip side of a racist.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by ByEeek)
You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.
The problem is that people complain that the stats are skewed, such that more black people are stopped as a percentage than white people and others. This mean the policy is called racist, the black people who are stopped say the stop is racist, and the policy is untenable. What this overlooks as a basic fact is that the victims and the perpetrators of these crimes are usually black. The people carrying knives on them and those who need to be stopped -- are black.

Even if you use stop and searches based on intel, the fact that most of the people involved in stabbing attacks are black means that you're going to be stopping and searching more black people parcentage-wise. So that is OK, as long as a fearful suit-wearing person phones 111 beforehand to tell them they saw a scary black man on the street shouting gang stuff and suspect the black person is carrying a knife? Rather than trained police officers using their experience to identify people, against established markers and traits, who are likely involved in gang crimes.

Don't presume intel is necessarily more disinterested and not led by racist biases. After all, that intel comes from ordinary members of the public. You and me. And people are foolish and have foolish notions. Community-led intel is just not as forthcoming as the bobby's initiative.

(Btw, people who are stopped for speeding tell the police to go catch murderers and rapists -- people who are bothered by the police are generally upset. Don't see that we should stop speeding drivers as the policy is ineffective. In other words, it is not people moaning that's the problem. It is the potential to be labelled as racist, by people whose life is spent talking and moaning over form rather than substance.)
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by yudothis)
No, it's not whatever - the new left is fascist af. And you are one of them. I am not comfortable with it at all, I am just pointing out that you are the flip side of a racist.
You can assign whatever labels you like to me. But I find it rather sad that you see equality as a bad thing. I don't really understand how treating people the same regardless of how they look, speak or their gender is somehow a step backwards. Bring on the meritocracy I say.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by ByEeek)
You can assign whatever labels you like to me. But I find it rather sad that you see equality as a bad thing. I don't really understand how treating people the same regardless of how they look, speak or their gender is somehow a step backwards. Bring on the meritocracy I say.
But you are not treating people the same, you want special privileges. Every time the left talks about 'rights', it's not rights they want, they just do that to pretend their demands have merit and those that oppose them are evil people who "deny me my rights".
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (12)
27.27%
Spring (7)
15.91%
Autumn/Fall (13)
29.55%
Winter (8)
18.18%
I love them all equally (4)
9.09%

Watched Threads

View All